Daily Archives: 17 October 2005

Campaign Photos 101

Via Jonathan Calder, I bring you Tim Ireland’s Art of Looking Concerned.

It’s easy to take the piss when it’s Tories, but I’m uncomfortably aware that a) this is the sort of thing that the Lib Dems run extensive training courses on at conferences, etc. and b) that I began looking at the photos from the point of view of an old hand myself. They’re quite well posed, if a little wooden, but everyone knows you should make sure your candidates have a change of clothing before going out so it doesn’t look like all the photos have been taken on the same day. At the very least, male candidates should wear a suit and then change ties between each shoot.

I’m so ashamed…


One of my favourite species is the false killer whale, for no other reason than for its name. Here are some false killer whale-related facts (all courtesy of Wikipedia):

  • False killer whales are not in fact whales, but cetaceans, and neither are killer whales. Both species kill dolphins, which seems a bit mean. Give a dog a bad name…
  • Not only are killer whales not whales, but the term “killer whale” is a mistranslation of the Spanish for “whale killer”.
  • False killer whales are no more “false” than killer whales, and the whole “false” thing is bit unfair really. They’re only called that because some donut mistook them for another species and the name stuck. Rumours that false killer whales tend to be excessively nice to people they can’t stand at parties remain unfounded.
  • False killer whales have elbows. Sort of.
  • A hybrid of a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin (presumably, the false killer whale creed is “what we don’t eat we shag”) is called a wolphin. This would be a ridiculous name even if it wasn’t for the fact that, as already stated, a false killer whale is not a whale!

Feel free to add your own fascinating false killer whale related facts in the comments below.

You’ll be hearing from my liars…

The following text appeared in this morning’s MediaGuardian email, referring to a story in both the Telegraph and the Mirror:

The BBC’s inquiry into John Humphrys’ alleged comments about ministers being lawyers amounted to a single phone call, the Today presenter claimed yesterday.

While it is a simple matter of record that a number of ministers including Jack Straw, Lord Falconer and of course “our Tone” are in fact qualified lawyers, I can well understand why Humphrys is upset. After all, who would want to be accused of suggesting that government ministers in some way have respect for rule of law? Outrageous!